Many Questions, No Answers

Earlier this week the usually compliant press had the audacity to question Jay Carney about Obama's Chi-town mafia's selling quarterly access to the highest official in the land for $500,000. Apparently expecting the question, Mr. Carney read a prepared response to journalists in the Press Pool. He reread the same statement again in response to the follow up question from Jake Tapper, as if Jake wasn't paying attention the first time or was too stupid to understand what he was parroting. As the gaggle of media minions continued to yell follow-up questions, Jay, of course, slithered silently out of the room.

In the rehearsed response, Jay claimed that it's okay because the Republicans voted down a bill that would have prevented just this kind of unethical behavior.

Charles Krauthammer, commenting on Fox, nailed it on the head: "It's always Republicans who prevent Obama from acting ethically."

Later in the week Mr. Krauthammer, this time at NRO, brings up this statement from a leading anti-budget-cuts lobbyist quoted in the Washington Post, "The worst-case scenario for us is the sequester hits and nothing really bad happens."

Mr. Krauthammer again pulls no punches: "Think about that. Worst case? That a government drowning in debt should cut back by 2.2% -- and the country survives. That a government now borrowing 35 cents of every dollar it spends reduces borrowing by 2 cents 'and nothing really bad happens'. Oh the humanity!"

Mona Charen states the obvious at NRO: "Even if these "draconian cuts" are implemented, the federal government will spend more this year than it did last year. Another way to think about it is this: In 2007, the government was 40 percent smaller than it is today. Were poor people sleeping under bridges? Were elderly starving? Were planes grounded? Was food unsafe to eat? Here's another question: Are Americans really this gullible?"

My question is: How can the press be that gullible? Isn't it their jobs to ask these questions? If we were operating under a Republican Administration, would the press be this accepting?

Charen quotes radio host Chris Plante: "Since this 2 percent obviously covers all essential government spending, let's cut the other 98%."

Okay, that's a ridiculous statement, but at the same time it demonstrates just how absurd it is to claim that the earth will open up and swallow us all if you cut the budget 2%.

A question from me for the Lefties in Washington and the lamestream media: If cutting spending $85 billion will bring on Armageddon, why hasn't increasing government revenue by $137 billion on January first this year resulted in instantaneous economic boom?

And for Obama himself: You are required by law to provide your own budget proposal but you informed Congress that it would be late -- again! Why won't you submit your budget and let us see how you would avoid the "draconian cuts" in a responsible manner? Are you afraid it would be voted down unanimously the same as your last two budget proposals?

Finally, for all the Lefties out there who drink the Obama Kool Aid: Thanks to Obama, you took a 2% hit to your paycheck this year and you were already making on average 4% less income than when you voted BHO into office. How can you not expect the Federal government to tighten their belts along with you and your families?

Unfortunately, the media and the Lefties have their fingers in their ears while they hum songs of adoration to their messiah, so don't expect any answers coming any time soon.

Earlier this week the usually compliant press had the audacity to question Jay Carney about Obama's Chi-town mafia's selling quarterly access to the highest official in the land for $500,000. Apparently expecting the question, Mr. Carney read a prepared response to journalists in the Press Pool. He reread the same statement again in response to the follow up question from Jake Tapper, as if Jake wasn't paying attention the first time or was too stupid to understand what he was parroting. As the gaggle of media minions continued to yell follow-up questions, Jay, of course, slithered silently out of the room.

In the rehearsed response, Jay claimed that it's okay because the Republicans voted down a bill that would have prevented just this kind of unethical behavior.

Charles Krauthammer, commenting on Fox, nailed it on the head: "It's always Republicans who prevent Obama from acting ethically."

Later in the week Mr. Krauthammer, this time at NRO, brings up this statement from a leading anti-budget-cuts lobbyist quoted in the Washington Post, "The worst-case scenario for us is the sequester hits and nothing really bad happens."

Mr. Krauthammer again pulls no punches: "Think about that. Worst case? That a government drowning in debt should cut back by 2.2% -- and the country survives. That a government now borrowing 35 cents of every dollar it spends reduces borrowing by 2 cents 'and nothing really bad happens'. Oh the humanity!"

Mona Charen states the obvious at NRO: "Even if these "draconian cuts" are implemented, the federal government will spend more this year than it did last year. Another way to think about it is this: In 2007, the government was 40 percent smaller than it is today. Were poor people sleeping under bridges? Were elderly starving? Were planes grounded? Was food unsafe to eat? Here's another question: Are Americans really this gullible?"

My question is: How can the press be that gullible? Isn't it their jobs to ask these questions? If we were operating under a Republican Administration, would the press be this accepting?

Charen quotes radio host Chris Plante: "Since this 2 percent obviously covers all essential government spending, let's cut the other 98%."

Okay, that's a ridiculous statement, but at the same time it demonstrates just how absurd it is to claim that the earth will open up and swallow us all if you cut the budget 2%.

A question from me for the Lefties in Washington and the lamestream media: If cutting spending $85 billion will bring on Armageddon, why hasn't increasing government revenue by $137 billion on January first this year resulted in instantaneous economic boom?

And for Obama himself: You are required by law to provide your own budget proposal but you informed Congress that it would be late -- again! Why won't you submit your budget and let us see how you would avoid the "draconian cuts" in a responsible manner? Are you afraid it would be voted down unanimously the same as your last two budget proposals?

Finally, for all the Lefties out there who drink the Obama Kool Aid: Thanks to Obama, you took a 2% hit to your paycheck this year and you were already making on average 4% less income than when you voted BHO into office. How can you not expect the Federal government to tighten their belts along with you and your families?

Unfortunately, the media and the Lefties have their fingers in their ears while they hum songs of adoration to their messiah, so don't expect any answers coming any time soon.

RECENT VIDEOS